I don't really give a toss about PR, I hoped in the last election that the LDs would get enough seats to force one of the big two into a minority government, so we'd have to have bi-partisan consensus and common sense in decision-making. A new politics that forced MPs to overcome cross-party bickering and actually make decision based on what they thought was right, rather than the party whip.

You say PR or AV means we don't get to choose who represents us, but given the system of safe seats we don't really get to do that anyway.

A regional system of PR/AV would provide a fairer vote count along with practically the same choice we have now. If combined with the 're-vote on misconduct' ideas being put forward I see that as much better than the current system.

Under FPTP this contributes to a Labour MP being returned and there are 350 Labour MPs, 250 Tory MPs and 50 Lib Dems.

Under PR this is a vote for Labour and there turn out to be 330 Labour MPs, 220 Tory MPs and 100 Lib Dems.

Do you see how the two are incompatible? You can't have both. Is my MP one of the 20 to be culled? Does that mean I get a Tory MP or a Lib Dem looking after my local interests despite the fact that we all voted Labour?

If all the voting in the commons was done on a PR basis wouldn't it work?

So the same MP's that get in FPTP sit in the commons but voting on laws is done on PR thus making the party with the most PR points the party in power.

Well I don't think it should be unelected completely. I believe the majority of the second house should be elected but for a longer duration, maybe 10 years instead of 5 years so they should theoretically more about the medium/long term than the house of commons.

I like the idea of a house of regions and house of local governments as well.

I think the FPTP system has proved it's ineffectiveness enough over the last 40 years.

If (similar to above) we have house 1 as represented by local PR elections, and house two represented by a separate PR election. House 2 (House of Gov) wouldn't have direct choice of candidate, but it's not like the second house has that now anyway. It would at least give it a balance.

You can prove, using science, that PR would sometimes represent people less well than FPTP, and sometimes neither do a particularly good job. It's always a matter of compromise. I know this because I read it in New Scientist and they don't lie.

I really liked the aspect of "I'd like my vote to goto this person / party, unless they don't get enough 1st choices in which case I
d like my vote to go to this one instead".

In my area, for example, I could've put LD (fat chance of that now or any time soon, but they'd never get close here anyway) as first choice, Lab as second, one of my cats as third, Emperor Napoleon as fourth...[...]... and Tory as fucking never.

IMO it would've led to a lot more people putting their *actual* party of choice as 1st and their 'realistic' choice as second.

mcmonkeyplc wrote:
@LeoliansBro What's to stop them from going mental and not allowing anything to pass?

I'd like to give them an incentive to remain sane and in touch

What's to stop the house of Lords going mental and not allowing anything to pass? What's to stop the ruling party going mental and refusing to rule? What's the stop me crapping myself in the middle of the office and parking a turd on my knob, then chasing the ladies around reception?